pyroknightsfandomcom-20200214-history
Assessment of Designs
Figures of Merit (FOM) *Criteria that is important to NASA and UAH in selection of a design. *Every FOM needs to be defined in the form of a question. *Every FOM should have some form of preference (Do we like it better than another FOM?). Weight *1 means low importance *3 means medium importance *9 means high importance List of Custom FOMS Definition of FOMS chosen by UAH and NASA Decision Analysis *Use the FOMS from above in this Decision Analysis chart below Designs we are Analysing Picture of Finished Chart Description of Assignment Assessment *Science Objective: The first model received a 3 while the other two models received a 9 because the first model due to its ineffective modular configuration. Also models 2 and 3 have the same instruments and therefore are equally effective at using them to completing the science objective. * Likelihood Project Requirements: The first model received a 1,model two earned a 9, and the third model recieced a 3. The first model was too massive and therefore could not fit within restraints. Models 2 and 3 could possibly fit within the restraints, and use the same number of modules and have the same chassis so the scoring was particularly close. Model 2 was more likely to fufill project requirements than Model 3 because Model 3's hover fan's added additional mass. * Science Mass Ratio and Likelihood Project Requirements were judged exactly the same and therefore the scores are the same as well as the reasoning. * Design Complexity: The first design is too complex due to its number of modules and large instruments. Design 2 requires treads which are insanely difficult to engineer in CAD but the number of modules is significantly smaller than Model 1. Model 3 has the same number of modules as Model 2 but Model 3 uses hover fans which are difficult to construct and possibly more complex to engineer than treads. * Co-Ops Complexity: The first model received a 1 while the other two models received a 3 because the first models had lots of components to it and they could be done by the other two designs easily and with less components. The other two models received a 3 because they had less modules than the first design but they could fufill the objective more efficiently. * Likelihood of Mission Success: The first model received a 1, the second model received a 3, and the final model received a 9. The first model was too large and clunky to properly complete its mission. The second design was smaller but could fall victim to environmental hazards. The third design received a 9 because its small design and ability to hover grant it the ability to overcome environmental hazards and successfully complete the mission. * Manufacturability: The first model received a 9 because its design was simple and easy to manufacture. The second model received a 3 because it used treads which are difficult to design even in CAD. The third model received a 1 because it has treads and hover fans making it even harder to manufacture than design 2. * Durability: The first model received a 3 because it has additional modules. The second model received a 9 because it can better traverse terrain and better avoid danger. The third model has hover fans that are susceptible to damage which is why it recieved a 1. * Functionality: The first model received a 1 because of ineffectual instrumentation, while the second model got a 3 because of its tread supported all-terrain mobility and improved instrumentation, and the third design earned a 9 because of its ability to hover as well as traverse on all terrain and improved instrumentation. *Mobility: The first model received a 9 because of its ability to split into multiple modules allowing it to traverse multiple areas at once. The second model received a 3 because they are equipped with treads which allow them to traverse all terrain environments. The third model received a 9 because of it tread/hover versatility.